Dedicated to getting to the truth of things. A Christian since 1984. (Just a Christian, without pigeon-holing into a denomination.) I like people to be free to ask their questions about Christianity and the church. I like to approach faith questions with my brain switched on. A qualified classicist and historian.
Tweet: @colin_bluenose
And I don't look like James Garner. Enough about me already.

Sunday, 10 April 2016

They were devoted to the apostles' teaching

Irenaeus – On the Apostolic Preaching

I like to post about evidence for early Christianity that
gets less attention that it could get, if we open our eyes a little more. Stuff
that the ‘ordinary’ Christian doesn’t know, but academic scholars do know. I like
to put this in the hands of ordinary Christians.

This one is about a late but valuable witness to what Jesus’
apostles were preaching. You might think that we have it all in the New
Testament. But what if there is more? In the Book of Acts, in the New
Testament, it is written that the church was devoted to the apostles’ teaching,
but how much of this teaching do we have? Nothing in the New Testament ever
says that the New Testament includes the apostles’ whole teaching. (How could
it? It wasn’t all completely collected and called the New Testament until after
the writers’ deaths, so none of them knew its contents list.) The Gospel of
John says that it doesn’t have enough space to tell of everything Jesus did.

So here it is: Irenaeus’ book called On the Apostolic Preaching. This is something special: an early
church document that says it contains the apostles’ teaching, preserved by the
church, and now summarised in the second century. Could there be a core in this
that really does go back to Jesus’ apostles?

This document was written down by a second century Christian,
Irenaeus of Lyon. The second century might seem a bit late at first, but on the
other hand, Irenaeus was well placed. He tells us that he learned as a young
man from a Christian bishop called Polycarp who had learned from John. (See
Irenaeus’ other book Against Heresies,
III.3.4.) So the relationships between these people are not far removed from
the first century at all.

On the Apostolic
Preaching isn’t based on the New Testament, that’s for sure. And its
contents lend credence to its claim to go right back to the apostles’ era. And
Irenaeus didn’t just make it up. Before him, Justin Martyr also wrote down
chunks of it, and he didn’t base it on the New Testament either. Writing in the
second half of the second century AD, Irenaeus is quite clear about the first
century origins of the material. He is writing it down, he says,

‘as the elders, the disciples of
the apostles have handed down to us’ (3)

‘true is the tradition of preaching, that is, the
witness of the apostles’ (86)

‘This, beloved is the preaching of the truth
... the apostles handed over...’ (98)

(John Behr’s translation, the numbers are as in his
translation.)

The document sets out how Old Testament predictions come
true in the life of Jesus:

His country of birth was Judea and his people
were the Jews (58)

This happened while the land of Israel was under
Roman rule (57)

He was born in Bethlehem and born of a virgin
(63)

The magi visited the infant Jesus in a house
(58)

Jesus performed healings including for the deaf,
the blind and the lame (67)

He also raised the dead (66)

Some believed in Jesus and others did not (56)

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a foal (65)

At his arrest, Jesus was left abandoned by his
disciples (76)

Jesus was tortured and killed and his death was
voluntary on his part (68)

Herod and Pontius Pilate between them condemned
Jesus to crucifixion (74)

Pilate had, until then, held ill-will toward
Herod (77)

Jesus’ arms were stretched out on the cross (79)

The soldiers crucifying him cast lots for his
tunic (80)

Judas
took thirty pieces of silver from Jewish leaders but repented and hanged
himself, and the silver was used to buy a field for burial (81)

On the cross Jesus was given vinegar to drink
(82)

He died (78)

He was buried (72)

And there is a fair bit about his resurrection too.

Now I’m not writing this to say that On the Apostolic Preaching proves anything about the life of Jesus
to us. That’s not my point at all.

What is so interesting is that Irenaeus is not saying that
he is quoting from the gospels (which he had read) but that he was writing down
the apostles’ preaching which had been handed down. We usually consider that we
have this sort of information from the gospels. But Irenaeus has to be taken to
mean this: that the core of this teaching is older than when the gospels were
written down. He is writing down what was handed down from the apostles. If you
are familiar with reading the gospels, and read On the Apostolic Preaching, then you will immediately note the
difference in style when reading this. As for the style of it, it feels more
like the sermons of Peter in the Book of Acts. That fits, given that this is
supposed to be the apostles’ preaching.

Why did Irenaeus write it down? He himself gives his reason,
when addressing his document to someone called Marcianus:

‘since at this present time, we
are separated from each other in body... we have not hesitated to speak a
little with you... by writing ... and to demonstrate, by means of a summary, the preaching of the truth,
so as to strengthen your faith.’ (1)

In other words, this isn’t even the whole thing! It is a
summary written down for Marcianus, since this man wasn’t present with Irenaeus
to keep hearing the fuller tradition.

John Behr makes some really helpful comments about this
document: one of the things that makes the document special is that it is the
first summary of plain and straightforward church
teaching that was passed from person to person. Unlike much of what
Christian wrote in the second century -

It isn’t argumentative – it isn’t one side of a
polemical debate.

It isn’t apologetics – it isn’t written as a
defence of the faith from the attacks of outsiders – it’s teaching inside the
early church.

It isn’t a system of theology and beliefs.

It hardly talks about how the church should be
organised.

The New Testament isn’t used as the basis of the
teaching, although Irenaeus knows the NT.[1]

What the apostolic preaching does show is how the early
church understood the Old Testament to be
about Jesus. Whether you think it makes a good preach is another matter of
course! This is a contribution to the evidence of a very early way of telling
the story of Jesus that, at its core as an oral tradition, may be even older than
the written version of the gospels – indeed in my view it likely is.

Whether or not you are convinced by the way the Old
Testament has been drilled and mined and quarried and excavated to find
scriptures to fit the life story of Jesus is up to your judgment. Some may seem
to be stretching things, unearthing things in the Old Testament that you would
never have thought of applying to Jesus’ story but making that connection
anyway!

All that remains is for you to go and read it! I
Recommend John Behr’s translation. Online versions can also be found.

[1] I
don’t mean to give the impression that parts of the Bible were called ‘Old
Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ in Irenaeus’ day. These terms hadn’t been
thought of, but I’m keeping this simpler for the general reader.